Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
again, thank you for admitting all you have is conjecture/speculation....
obama continues the gray hair trend
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
again, thank you for admitting all you have is conjecture/speculation....
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
But you don't have any evidence.
It was known how much the lawyer turned down and that was reported, I used the low figure. In any case however much it was, it was enought to buy silence in order to protect O'Reilly. Are you really trying to tell me O'Reilly "protected" his image by not fighting for it?
No, is everyone innocent? NOT constitutionally, in deed and MORALLY.
Amazing how mentioning RW gurus brings the cockroaches scurrying.
I'll stand by my reply. The fact that O'Reilly bought silence does not make him an innocent man, merely wealthy and untried.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
amazing how pissy you get when you're proven wrong
VERY weak.
I said the final amount was speculation but it was known how much the girl's attorney turned down, $2millon.The fact remains O'Reilly bought the girls's silence, not his innocence. You forgot opinion which is exactly what you're working from.
Last edited:
Don't be a twink, I'm not in the least "pissed", mostly amused. My opinion is proven wrong? How does that work?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i'm not the one who paraded around the o'reilly issue as fact, you did and were shown you were wrong, it is not fact and you have nothing but conjecture as to whether he is guilty or not....so you get pissy, call people cockroaches, me a twink.....unbunch your panties
"Pissy" is a word I would never use. (I'm still amused.)
Which O'Reilly facts did I misstate that you have proven wrong? Can an opinion be proven wrong or merely disagreeable? You can disagree with an opinion which you did.
The cockroach analogy was just that, an analogy.
Want to see it work?
Glen Beck is a traitorous, lying piece of crap, guilty of sedition.......................
Last edited:
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
no...you're being pissy....
and you stated it as fact and argued it as fact, when finally backed into a corner that all you have is conjecture, you now call it your opinion...but the fact is you stated he was guilty and have now finally relented and admit you don't know...seriously, arguing this further is a waste of time
and you stated it as fact and argued it as fact, when finally backed into a corner that all you have is conjecture, you now call it your opinion...but the fact is you stated he was guilty and have now finally relented and admit you don't know...seriously, arguing this further is a waste of time
Your imagination is running rampant and amusing. What facts did I misstate? Do you "know" he is innocent? How so? I and the world will wait to see what your "proof" is that he's innocent. I will state that holier-than-thou hypocrisy is fact.
Take them 1 by 1 without getting "pissy".
TuTu Monroe
A Realist
Nothing was ever proven. It was always a he said/she said case.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you're missing the whole point, you claimed he was guilty and that his settlement was proof of that guilt...as you said...he wouldn't have paid up if he was innocent...
i never claimed one way or the other, i merely pointed out that you are wrong to state his guilt as fact, so your focus on me proving anything is a red herring
I will go back to what I have tried to say from the beginning. The fact that O'Reilly could afford to buy the silence of his accuser does not make him an innocent man. You seem to be ready to swear by his innocence, I question how.
To me, also stated earlier, the path he followed of hushing the case as opposed to fighting it is the path I believe, of a guilty man choosing to avoid the wisdom of the court. Letterman admitted to his audience he had done wrong, your hero avoided laying open the supposed falsehood of his accuser with his money. Thereby my accusation of hypocrisy by Obama's naysayers, the point of my original O'Reilly post.
The facts as I see them add up to the probability of his guilt, you think differently, that makes me no more wrong than you. Now tell me my misstatements, please.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you're a liar...as i said before, i never said one way or the other whether he is innocent, i don't know if he or isn't....stop making stuff to make yourself look better after you failed to show o'reilly is guilty of anything
i've told you your misstatements, you're obfuscating and creating strawman out of thin air....i never said he was my hero, i never said he was innocent or guitly, you're flat speaking falsehoods because you can't accept the fact you were shown that your statements that o'reilly is guilty are not fact...accept it and move on
What did I misstate?
I am telling you that is a very real possibility, many public figures do exactly that. I would say the same thing if it were Olbermann, or any of the lefty editorialists on the tube. Seriously, lawsuits are often settled just to get the story off the front pages assuming guilt or innocence is worthless from settlements.
I agree, and I don't doubt your objectivity. I'm aware of the reasons for settling lawsuits. I brought up O'Reilly's name only tp point out the hypocrisy of those objecting to Obama scheduling an interview with an admitted philanderer as opposed to the ssilence from the same folks over bush scheduling multiple interviews with a man who, though not admitted, settled his sexual harrassment case to avoid trial. Settlement does not abrogate guilt except in a legal sense. When Columbia Health settled with the govenment for $2.7 billion while not admitting guilt,it does not mean they are not guilty but merely untried.The reasons O'Reilly settled are also unknown as a part of the settlement agreement. That fact can only lead to speculation, some coming to my conclusion, others disagreeing.
Good night.
L
LendMeYourEar
Guest
I'm sure he's having it dyed. As to fit in with previous presidents.